State Supreme Court and Appellate Courts’ references to the Reid Technique

A review of all 50 state Supreme Court and Appellate decisions and the District of Columbia that referenced the Reid Technique in a decision found that no state labelled the Reid Technique as coercive, illegal, prohibited, or that it violated due process. *

The courts repeatedly stated that confessions must be evaluated on the totality of circumstances. As an example, in State v. G.O., 124,676 (Kan. 2024), the court stated that “Voluntariness must be determined from the totality of the circumstances.” The court elaborated that courts must examine:

• characteristics of the accused
• details of the interrogation
• police conduct and pressures

Numerous decisions noted that police deception alone does not render a confession involuntary but must be evaluated in light of the suspect’s characteristics and the conditions of the interrogation. For example, from the Hawaii Supreme Court, State v. Baker, 147, Haw.413 (2020), “Intrinsic factual deception is not considered so coercive as to automatically render the accused’s statement involuntary."

Clarifying court references to minimization techniques

Several court decisions in their opinions refer to the investigator’s use of minimization techniques associated with the Reid Technique. To be clear, we never teach investigators to minimize the possible consequences or punishment that the subject might receive for the crime that they committed. We scrupulously teach investigators not to make any promises of leniency or threats of harm.

We do teach investigators to offer the subject an understandable reason for committing the crime…. for example, that he committed the robbery to get money to take care of his family, versus to go out and buy drugs or guns. This approach is what psychologists refer to as neutralization techniques.

Gresham Sykes and David Matza** first introduced the neutralization theory of criminology in the 1950s, and it focuses on how individuals who engage in criminal activity can justify their actions to themselves and others. According to the theory, criminals use techniques such as denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties to neutralize the feelings of guilt or shame associated with their actions. This theory proposes that people who commit crimes often use techniques of neutralization to deflect responsibility for their actions and justify their criminal behavior.

“I didn’t really hurt anybody,” “They had it coming to them,” and “I didn’t do it for myself” are, as Sykes and Matza point out, examples of neutralizations. Neutralizations, also called rationalizations, are defined as justifications and excuses for deviant behavior. (Source: What is Neutralization Theory of Criminology? Its Relevance in Modern Times, Implications for Justice System and Criticisms written by Anita Sharma, published in Social Science Criminology Law, March 23, 2023)

PLEASE NOTE - Several states have enacted legislation that prohibits law enforcement officers from lying to juvenile subjects about the evidence in the case. The following states have enacted such legislation: Illinois, Oregon, California, Utah, Delaware, Indiana, Connecticut, and Colorado. There may be additional states that have enacted similar legislation so please check your state statutes.

Reid Policy on the Use of Deception During an Interrogation

* Review conducted via ChatGPT AI